Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
"Look at this chorus of entitled White men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. BONUS: We castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes."
Georgetown University backed her, stating that "The views of Faculty members expressed in their private capacities are their own". Lucky for Ms Fair that she was taking about White Senators and not, say, Hispanic rapists.
Did Brett Kavanaugh get drunk on occasion 35 years ago when he was a teenage kid enjoying himself at high school parties. Did he ever get over-intoxicated on beer at these parties and engage in some youthful, drunken antics; some silly horse-play like, for instance, grab assing the odd girl or two? I don't know for sure, but I would say that it was quite likely that he did, but if so, he would hardly have been the only one, especially back in the 1980s when high school and college parties in the West were notoriously boozy affairs and the binge-drinking of alcoholic beverages by both sexes was pretty much de rigeur , and it most certainly doesn't mean that he was a violent rapist.In short, if we were to adopt a policy of disqualifying well-qualified people, like Brett Kavanaugh, from high office because they had engaged in underage drinking or some youthful drunken antics when they were 18 years old, then I think we would have a very hard time staffing the government (!) In any case for lots of people, whether Kavanaugh lied about his past drinking behaviour is not the real problem. The real problems for lots of people in the United States - those like Professor Fair whom I have just quoted above is that Justice Brett Kavanaugh was White. Consider the following press articles that were published while Judge Kavanaugh's was facing accusations of sexual assault/rape
Bryce Covert at The Huffington Post wrote an article called: "What Kavanaugh's Ugly Entitlement Can Teach Other White Men." Ms Covert said that what's ugly is that Judge Kavanaugh (quote) "feels like he is entitled to this seat", in her view, he thinks (quote), "such power, such prestige is the privilege of White men."
Jonathan Capebart of the Washington Post was singing the same tune in an article entitled : "Hell Hath No Fury Like An Entitled White Man Denied". All of this is a part of what Mr Capebart calls (quote): "the racism and misogyny that is tightly woven into our national DNA."
When Judge Kavanaugh got upset at accusations off gang rape which he swore were false, Paul Krugman of the New York Times wrote that he had joined "The Angry White Male Caucus." Mr Krugman wrote that (quote)...
"White male rage isn't restricted to blue-collar guys in diners. Hatred can go along with a high income and all too often it does."
Here we note the American left's favourite word : "hatred". The Judge is an angry, White, male, hater. I wonder if Mr Krugman thinks Professor Christine " feed-them-to-the-swine" Fair of Georgetown U is a hater?
Rex Huppke of the Chicago Tribune, accused Brett Kavanaugh of having told "little, White, male privilege lies" to the Committee. Note, not "Lies", but "White, male privilege lies"
Anne Brannigan of The Root an online Afrocentric magazine launched by the Washington Post in 2008, wrote that (quote)...
"America is a patriarchy built on White supremacy"
and that Judge Kavanaugh's testimony was...
"...a perfect distillation of Whiteness and maleness."
Professor Marcie Hamilton at the University of Pennsylvania wrote an article for the New York Daily News called "Brett Kavanaugh's Indignation Was The Sound of Privileged White Male Entitlement", while Professor Hameed Dabashi of Columbia University wrote about: "Kavanaugh and White Boy's Club Politics in the US", he blasted: "White boy denial" and "raging White power."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board posted a photograph of Judge Kavanaugh choking back tears as Christine Blasey Ford ( now exposed as a pathological liar and perjurer) accused him of being a rapist, along the photograph was the headline, "A Crying Brett Kavanaugh. This is What White Male Privilege Looks Like."
And "Twitter", of course was full to the brim with talk about: "Privileged White Boy", "White Male Privilege", "Angry White Male", "White Male Entitlement" and so on, often laced with the now apparently obligatory obscenities.
All of these people are obsessed with race and some of them seem, IMO, pretty clearly guilty of what White America is always being accused of, namely hatred. The question of Brett Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence was far less important to them than it was as an opportunity to vent their contempt for White men and hysterically denounce so-called "White Privilege." Bear in mind that if you were anything but a White man it would be unthinkable to pound him so viciously; but in America it's "open season" on White men, and only White men, all the year round. They are the only people who can be attacked in the most blood-thirsty way purely BECAUSE of their race and sex, and then be accused of White male privilege.
How is it these people of the liberal left who attacked Judge Kavanaugh on the grounds of his race and sex, cannot see the irony? America used to believe in due process and the rule of law for ALL the people, privileged or not, and this is why, since the 16th century Lady Justice has been depicted wearing a blindfold ( i.e. symbolising the ideal that justice is blind to an individual's class, wealth, sex, colour, creed, ethnicity, etc). We aren't supposed to (quote) "Believe The Women" (or "Believe The Men", for that matter) what we are supposed to believe is the EVIDENCE. For many of Brett Kavanaugh's critics evidence didn't seem to matter, all they needed to do was to take one look at him to declare him guilty - GUILTY OF BEING A WHITE MAN IN AMERICA.
Post Script: With regard to the FOUR women who we now know falsely accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and rape. The most destructive allegations by far, were those made by Christine Blasey Ford in her testimony that Kavanaugh was a rapist. Christine Blasey Ford has now been exposed as an extremely devious pathological liar. In October of this year hard evidence was presented effectively confirming, beyond any doubt, that Ford had lied under oath to a Senate Committee while she was being questioned about her testimony in the Kavanaugh case. Lying under oath is, according the relevant US law, "felony perjury", and carries a maximum 5 - year jail sentence. Christine Blasey Ford is a vile, low-rent criminal who intentionally set out to destroy the lives of Judge Kavanaugh, a decent, respectable man, and his family. She has now been caught red-handed lying under oath and ought be immediately recalled, charged with perjury, and then, when found guilty, (which she clearly is according to the damning evidence which, BTW, is available for anyone to read on the internet), locked up in behind bars in prison where she belongs.
This is what SHOULD happen, and it is important that it should happen so that justice and the rule of law (and order) in America is seen to prevail. But just watch now while absolutely nothing is done, - while the "Swamp" lets Christine Blasey Ford walk away scott free from the outrageous crimes she has committed.
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
I think the above was a disgusting thing for her to say. She was, I've read, suspended from Twitter as a result.Associate Professor Christine Fair wrote:Look at this chorus of entitled White men justifying a serial rapist's arrogated entitlement. All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. BONUS: We castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.
@Dachshund's inflammatory language is remarkably similar. He has said similarly disgusting things, labelling entire groups of human beings as stinking, sub-human apes, calling for the forced removal of indigenous peoples from their home countries, calling for the ethnic cleansing of countries on the basis of skin colour, referring to people who do not support these views as "race traitors", etc.
He has, rightly, not been stopped from posting on this website.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
A comment from Scott (the administrator of this website) about the words of various controversial posters here:Our policy does not prohibit speech based on the person presenting ideas or the content of those ideas, even when those ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable
viewtopic.php?p=244357#p244357
One of the main motives for this comment was a particularly controversial OP which appeared to support paedophilia, but the topic in which it was made was on the general subject of when posters' words should and should not be moderated away. Obviously Dachshund's Nazi-like views on the purging of people not deemed to be "Anglo Saxon" enough from various societies, and/or the removal of those peoples' rights as human beings, are similarly controversial. But they are (rightly) not removed simply because of that.
That seems clear, though.Scott wrote:I suggest those that wish to publish such vulgar personal attacks instead submit their insulting swear words about strangers on the internet to a philosophy journal or the editorial section of their local newspaper. Maybe they want it. I am not interested in publishing it.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
I am also a "Nazi" in these sense that Sir Winston Churchill was, Churchill as you may recall was a brilliant British statesman, and he emphatically opposed the immigration into England of non-White foreign nations (in particular, Black Afro-Caribbeans) in the 1950s. In fact he argued that the Conservative Party should campaign the 1955 General election using the campaign slogan "Keep England White." Unfortunately Sir Winston was forced to stand down due to ill health shortly after advocating this measure and the "Keep England White" campaign policy was subsequently shelved by Anthony Eden.
Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher were also, by your standards, Dachshund-like "Nazis"/ wicked White supremacists - vile and grotesquely immoral Hitlerite scum, who perpetrated a heinous crime in staunchly advocating for the defense and strengthening, of a pride in White identity, a buttressing of White racial solidarity and the preservation, through reforms to immigration policy of a white majority among native inhabitants of the British Isles - in those Islands that were their ancient ancestral homeland.
What all these "Nazis", i.e. : Lincoln, Jefferson, Churchill, Powell, Thatcher and so many others like them had in common was that they possessed a clear understanding of a basic fact about human nature , and that fact is that different racial groups do mix. Moreover, when they are legally forced to integrate by governments like, for example, Barack Obama's Democrat administration whose policy was to increase non-white immigration into the US the result is inevitably civil unrest, bitter discord/ strife, deep socal division/decoherence and all too often often outright violent racial conflict.
A brief glance at the history of social relations in the United States from 1776 to the mid 1960s ( when the population of America was 90% White/European) shows that they were overwhelmingly harmonious. With the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, however, the segregation of the Black and White races in the US was comprehensively dismantled, and to cut a long story short, it was,- as they say in the football, "Goodnight Vienna" -, for the 300 year era of a contentment, peace and harmony that has previously been the norm in most of America's towns and cities. From the mid 1960s onward, the fact is that racial tension and conflict in the US rapidly grew increasingly ugly and bitter, and today in 2018, race relations America are without doubt more acrimonious than ever they were in the past.
To conclude. Let each ponder for himself the simple truth of what I am saying, namely: that when different racial groups are forced to integrate in any nation the result is ALWAYS disastrous.
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
very aggressive (both physically and verbally aggressive) towards any Whites who intrude onto their turf ( Urban aboriginal absolutely hate Whites, BTW, whom they blame for all of their legion social problems. Social problems such as: endemic educational failure; chronic unemployment and life-long welfare dependency, domestic violence/family breakdown and dysfunction; the confiscation of their children by social service officers who have deemed them to be at risk of serious harm under the" supervision" of their biological parents; extraordinary high rates of incarceration in State prisons for criminal offences like theft, drug offences and assault; their high prevalence of serious mental illness, youth suicide and medical conditions like type 2 diabetes; and so on .If, perchance, they are not drunk and spoiling for a fight with Whitey, there is little point in attempting to converse with them in any case, because they will likely be non compos mentis and "incommunicado" due either to acute cannabis intoxication or the heavy abuse of other mind-numbing chemical substances ( for instance, they have a lethal penchant for sniffing petrol and organic solvents as well as inhaling the toxic vapours from epoxy resin - type adhesives like "Araldite" glue; the nasal insufflation of the butane gas from disposable cigarette lighters is another favoured means to get "high").
Do they stink? Yes, because they are incapable of maintaining basic personal hygiene. Are they filthy dirty? Yes, because they cannot manage to regularly wash their own clothes. Are the footpaths in their neighbourhoods regularly saturated with urine, peppered with piles of human faeces and pools of vomit? Yes, because that is not regarded by them as antisocial behaviour.
Let me emphasise that I do not HATE these people, nor would I ever wish to inflict any kind of harm upon them whatsoever. I regard their their plight as one that is profoundly tragic. And their desperate predicament is, I believe, one that was an inevitable consequence of the fact that when the British who colonised Australia effectively allowed a primitive race of stone-age people to freely intermingle with themselves in their own White/European majority settlements, they did not ever envisage that the inescapable consequence of this "policy" would be widespread misery and suffering for the less culturally, morally and intellectually advanced race of Black natives. In short, it is unfair, I think, to lay the blame for the disastrous predicament of indigenous aboriginals at the feet of the White British who colonised Australian in the late 18th century. Because It is, as I say, simply the case that they could not foresee the consequences of permitting free racial-mixing in the new land they had discovered and begun to settle. It should be noted as well that In more recent times, White Australian governments have, since the 1960s, literally bent over backward in their various charitable efforts to sincerely try and remediate the dire social problems that afflict native Black aboriginal across the continent. But, again, as I have emphasised, their interventions were always doomed to fail because It is simply a fact of human nature that different racial groups are - like oil and water - innately and profoundly "immiscible". Six thousand years of human history clearly demonstrates that the members of any particular racial group always have always achieved better ( including happier, more harmonious and more peaceful) life outcomes for themselves when they remained separated or segregated from other racial groups. When a racial group is encouraged to remain separate, or is actively segregated, that is, when it is not legally forced by a government, or any other means, to integrate with different racial groups, it is thereby granted an unrestricted opportunity to do what it naturally desires most to do, namely: to foster a healthy sense of pride its own racial identity/consciousness, to strengthen the bonds of racial solidarity among its people, and to live according to the traditional cultural values and traditional social manners and mores of its own folk -i.e. its own "kith and kin".
Regards
Dachshund
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
I hope that one day you broaden your mind just a tiny bit and learn how to see your fellow human beings as human beings.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
Dachshund wrote:As for your own primitive, spear-chucking, moko-faced, haka-dancing "culture", guess what ? it' stone - cold dead, bro'., that's what Stream-rollered flat by the objectively superior cultural values, morality, customs, institutions social manners and mores of modern white/European Western civilization. Game over. You should bear in mind at all times that you are very LUCKY to have be permitted to reside in this country; if a lot of people, (myself included), had their way you would not be.
You really don't know what you believe, do you? You pathetic hypocrite.Dachshund wrote:Let me emphasise that I do not HATE these people, nor would I ever wish to inflict any kind of harm upon them whatsoever.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 16.1202008Dachshund wrote:Do they stink? Yes, because they are incapable of maintaining basic personal hygiene. Are they filthy dirty? Yes, because they cannot manage to regularly wash their own clothes. Are the footpaths in their neighbourhoods regularly saturated with urine, peppered with piles of human faeces and pools of vomit? Yes, because that is not regarded by them as antisocial behaviour.
From the article:
From "Some considerations on the naturalization of the Jews", quoted in the article:By the early eighteenth century the perceived stink of the Jews, the foetor judaicus, had come to be seen as the product of hygiene and diet rather than a curse from god.
I don't think you will ever be able to see the parallels between your own generalizations, which you use to re-enforce your own particular chosen de-humanizing prejudices, and those of other people, against other groups, in the past. But I cite them here again anyway....they [jews] are in general so indolent, slothful and nasty that they stink as they go, as well as their habitations: none being otherwise, except such whose wealth affords them to keep English servants... in order to prove that I do not aggravate circumstances, let any person that has not been there already, take a walk, incog. from Leadenhall-Street, through Duke’s Court, Broad-Court, then into Duke’s-Place, Bever’s-Marks, Henage-Lane, down the Steps in London-Wall, and so thro’ to Houndsditch, and up the Cribby Islands in Houndsditch, and then I think any person will allow they are the nastiest people by nature under heaven.
-
- Posts: 513
- Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
Don't ever presume to lecture me about what I have, or have not, seen with my own two f**king eyes, matey, When I was a young man in my late 20s I worked for three years as a public servant with the Queensland State government's Department of Education, my brief was "Distance Education", and thus I was dispatched into the so- called "Dead Heart" of the Australian outback, forced to "Do or Die" in some of the harshest and most arid desert and Channel country that exists in the world. I spent a considerable amount of time visiting Black Aboriginal townships like Boulia (and towns like Alice Springs, that while not 100% aboriginal, still had a very large numbers of full-blood aboriginals in residence) and I know what I saw. I saw in the native aboriginals a people, who, when sober ( i.e. completely alcohol and drug free) were a gentle, congenial, childlike race. I saw a people who were very simple-minded in terms of intellectual sophistication and the capacity for any of the higher order processes of rational cognition. I saw a people who were, with the relatively uncommon exception, totally illiterate and only able to speak a rude form of "pigeon" English. I saw a people who, in short, were, in the late 18th century when the British arrived ( which was not that long ago in historical terms) still very much a primitive, stone- age, "hunter gather" race of homo sapiensSteve3007 wrote: ↑November 23rd, 2018, 7:44 pmDachshund wrote:Do they stink? Yes, because they are incapable of maintaining basic personal hygiene. Are they filthy dirty? Yes, because they cannot manage to regularly wash their own clothes. Are the footpaths in their neighbourhoods regularly saturated with urine, peppered with piles of human faeces and pools of vomit? Yes, because that is not regarded by them as antisocial behaviour.
I don't think you will ever be able to see the parallels between your own generalizations, which you use to re-enforce your own particular chosen de-humanizing prejudices, and those of other people, against other groups, in the past. But I cite them here again anyway.
I have also, as a penniless first and second year University student in the 1980s spent many weeks of my mid-semester or other University vacations working with native aboriginals on the large properties of cattle, sheep and grain/cotton growing farmers to make some pocket money. I clearly recall that provided they were firmly and carefully supervised and organized by the White owners of the properties, the aboriginals were perfectly capable of performing most simple work tasks, like: hoeing out the toxic "Peach Weeds" that grew around the bases of cotton plants, herding cattle on horseback or motorbike, working as roustabouts in the wool shearing sheds, bagging wheat grain ready for sale and so on. I always found that they were good-natured, agreeable work mates, with - as I have said above - a kind of childlike innocence and humour about them that many, including youthful self, found intriguing and endearing. I noted with interest reading quite recently, that a number of men, who were high-ranking members of the in the ruling class of the 18th century British who arrived in the late 18th century ( military officers, Governors, administrators, etc), made very much the same remarks respecting the (endearingly childlike quirkiness) in the character of the native aboriginals' they got to know personally, that I just have.
As for those aboriginals who live in the largely Black-only enclaves that they have established for themselves in large cities like Sydney and Melbourne, or in reservations ( "Missions") built for them by the Federal government in regional areas, the situation is not so benign, in fact its absolutely appalling, and you will find if ever you visit one of these areas that everything I described about the tragic plight of these aboriginals is true: Filthy living conditions, poor personal hygiene) rampant alcoholism and drug abuse/ addiction, endemic unemployment, almost universal welfare dependence, an extraordinary high incidence domestic violence ( chiefly wives being brutally bashed by their husbands), crime, high rates of incarceration for young men ( mostly for drug offences/assault/theft/ damage to property, etc.),a scandalously widespread problem with child-abuse (sexual), incest, high prevalences of mental disorders ( and youth suicide), a pronounced predisposition to certain medical conditions like diabetes mellitus ( a consequence of binging on fatty Western "Junk Food") and poor general health, substantially shortened life expectancy, and the list of woes and social problems and grievances goes on and on an on.
I have also been to Post-Apartheid South Africa, but that's another story, for another time.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15148
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: BRETT KAVANAUGH'S REAL CRIME
When Dachshund visited the Aboriginals they were struck by how he was unable to pick up their language, no matter how long he stayed with them. Nor did he even the slightest understanding of the land, even less than that of a small child. They concluded that white men like him were stupid, unable to ever understand what it means to live in harmony with the land.Dachshund wrote: ↑November 24th, 2018, 1:02 amI saw in the native aboriginals a people, who, when sober ( i.e. completely alcohol and drug free) were a gentle, congenial, childlike race. I saw a people who were very simple-minded in terms of intellectual sophistication and the capacity for any of the higher order processes of rational cognition. I saw a people who were, with the relatively uncommon exception, totally illiterate and only able to speak a rude form of "pigeon" English. I saw a people who, in short, were, in the late 18th century when the British arrived ( which was not that long ago in historical terms) still very much a primitive, stone- age, "hunter gather" race of homo sapiens
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7987
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
Surely you're reasonably familiar with US general election political slogans? "Drain the swamp!", "Where's the beef?", "Lock her up!" , "Read my lips! No new taxes!", "Hey Buddy, you're liberal!", "Where's Waldo?", "No taxation without representation!" etc.LuckyR wrote:One question: what is the "Swamp" that is referred to in the OP?
- ktz
- Posts: 169
- Joined: November 9th, 2018, 12:21 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Habermas
Re: Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
If the original poster is even remotely interested in challenges his preconceived ideas on race, for example, it's very clear to an objective outsider that nearly everything he has uttered here regarding other races lies within the realm of the basic fundamental attribution error from psychology 101 -- the idea that all of the flaws of his own personal in-group members are a product of circumstance, while all the flaws of his out-groups are immediately assigned as representative of inherent traits and failings. But I kind of assume people like this, starved of love and attention themselves, get a kind of almost erotic pleasure from the idea that they are upsetting others and generally are unwilling to engage in discussion that legitimately challenges their beliefs.
As a chess player, I've had the opportunity to play against and discuss ideas with people from a wide variety of racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. Having gotten my ass kicked plenty of times by strong black masters who play at my club, and discussing with them afterward the depth of variations they had considered, to say that writing off an entire race of people based on a limited set of anecdotal interactions with aboriginal people to be beyond absurd.
I'm not dogmatically attached to the left or the right, I have no problem reading Bill O'Reilly's interesting memoirs or Chris Matthew's Hardball, which I found to be a very good read. But to me, as someone who seeks to find truth rather than confirm previous anecdotal understanding, it's generally clear based on the evidence available to me that in this particular zeitgeist, many more harms are perpetrated by corporate entities and old money actors who fall into the class of individuals described by "White Privilege" who use regulatory capture and other techniques to exploit smaller actors from the middle class and proletariat in non-constructive rent-seeking ways, than the other way around.
I used to wonder, when I was younger, about the kind of idiot who would call for Galileo and Copernicus to be killed when all they were trying to tell people was that they were not the center of the universe. Then I started meeting right-wing crazies and now I do not suffer from this particular brand of ignorance.
I think any individual considering interfacing with this thread is probably better off spending that time reading David Brock's book on the Republic Noise Machine than engaging with lost causes like this one.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Brett Kavanagh's Real Crime
Never has so far.I'm, uh, not sure anything productive can even come out of participating in a conversation like this.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023